Calling All Orthodox!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_S_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jon_S said:
What are your thoughts on the lifting of excommunication? Why lift the excommunication if the Patriarch felt as you do?

Serious question!
Click to expand...
It was a symbolic gesture made by the Ecumenical Patriarch. It doesn’t undo the synods which have condemned doctrinal differences, most notably the Filioque.
 
Jon_S said:
Symbolic of what?
Click to expand...
Good question. The gesture was heavily criticized by many figures in Orthodox world, precisely because they were not sure what the Ecumenical Patriarch meant by doing it. My own opinion is that it was simply a gesture of good will, both on the side of Patriarch Athenagoras and on the side of Pope Paul (since, after all, the mutual anathemas of 1054 didn’t truly cause the schism, lifting them can’t be thought of as ending the schism).
 
dzheremi said:
And you commune with that mouth? Lord have mercy.

I don’t know who you are actually in communion with, but I can’t imagine that they teach this kind of de-materialized, pseudo-cosmic ecclesiology. Again, Lord have mercy that anyone should read your words and mistake them for the witness of Orthodox Christianity, which (generally speaking, anyway) has very clear boundaries that you apparently do not respect or perhaps do not understand.

Need you be reminded that the Orthodox Church is truly Catholic? I’m not even EO and I know that’s the stance of your Church. It is that of mine, as well, as our ancient texts confirm: We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of Mankind, Remember O Lord the Peace of Your One only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church… (from the Litany of Peace of the Coptic Orthodox Liturgy of St. Cyril; according to the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology, we, the Orthodox Church, are the Church that is referred to in that passage, not the Roman Catholic Church.)

Again, I really hope nobody here takes Chimo’s post as evidence that Orthodox somehow believe that the Church somehow includes Rome despite the very clear fundamental differences in faith that keep us from union. Would that those differences did not exist so that we could once again partake of the same cup, but such unity will only occur at such a time as those differences no longer exist, and anything else is wishful thinking that is frankly damaging and scandalous to hear from anyone claiming to be Orthodox. There is one Church, not two or three or more.
Click to expand...
You have a very closed mind regarding our Catholic brothers and sisters. I don’t. Instead of seeing in my words what you prefer not to like why don’t you visit these neighbors of yours so that your perspective on them will be more broaden. It is because as Orthodox we will not contact our Catholic brothers and sisters that we have this judgment towards them. Our Orthodox witness is very misleading when we do not contact them. They are just as Catholic as we are and just as important and to deny this to them is not what Our Lord Jesus would want us to think. We have inherited this unjust attitude towards them that will not bend and we think our Lord would be happy with this. You think the East is fundamentally different than Rome. Let me ask you what is the faith anyway? The Eastern Church has no formal catechism. The Catholic Church has a formal catechism so where is this unity of faith which Easterners to have? The Easterners have more differences among themselves because there is no formal catechism taught. There is more unity among our Catholic brothers and sisters because they have a formal catechism to rely on. I am very surprised that Easterners would bring this issue in what is taught because there is no formal catechism for them at all to rely on.
 
Jon_S said:
I like the visual that we are the two lungs of the church EAST and WEST. We are unique and different but together the great vitality we can give the faith would be do much greater than trying to separately.
Click to expand...
That is very true. I liken East and West to a marriage of teachings. Look for instance at a young couple who are meant for each other. Are they completely alike? Of course not. There are noticeable differences in each person. Yet it is in these differences as well as their familiarities that will unite them. This can be the same analogy for our two Churches. We do have differences yet it is in these differences that will help define us better. No person is the same for God ordains each person to be fundamentally different with certain familiarities. I see our Churches were ordained by God to have certain differences (yet with certain familiarities) so that when we come to discover them for ourselves we will adopt them further into our lives so that we will have this “marriage” within us.
 
Cavaradossi said:
There can be no mysteries outside of the Church, because the mysteries are the very charismatic presence of the Church. This fundamental premise underlies all ecclesiological thought both in Rome and in Orthodoxy. The difference is in the conclusions which we have drawn from this one premise.

…
Click to expand...
The current model of Catholic sacramental theology was not created by Congar. It is the perennial teaching of the Church. It has always been taught that although baptism outside the Church may not avail to salvation (put another way, the recipient of baptis might not receive the grace of the sacrament), baptism administered validly always imprints the baptismal character. This is why baptism is never knowingly administered twice, or else it is administered conditionally. Augustine in a sermon (you know the quote) noting the impossibility of salvation outside the Church, admits that there can be sacraments outside the Church (in addition to every other element conceivable of the Church).
 
chimo said:
You have a very closed mind regarding our Catholic brothers and sisters. I don’t. Instead of seeing in my words what you prefer not to like why don’t you visit these neighbors of yours so that your perspective on them will be more broaden. It is because as Orthodox we will not contact our Catholic brothers and sisters that we have this judgment towards them.
Click to expand...
I live in a very Roman Catholic state, and was an active Roman Catholic for about a half a decade before becoming Orthodox. We welcome Catholics and all other non-Orthodox to our liturgy, provided they respect the norms of behavior for the Church, and do not attempt to commune. Before they moved away, we had two Catholic visitors who would regularly attend our liturgy because they liked it better than their own (their words). They never did convert to Orthodoxy, and neither were they pressured to. None of this changes the ecclesiology of the Church.
Let me ask you what is the faith anyway? The Eastern Church has no formal catechism. The Catholic Church has a formal catechism so where is this unity of faith which Easterners to have? The Easterners have more differences among themselves because there is no formal catechism taught.
Click to expand...
What’s your point? It’s not written down in a book because we don’t learn how to live the Orthodox life by reading it out of a book, but by living it. Like the saying goes, 90% is showing up. 🙂 There certainly are books and sayings and lectures and other materials to meditate on, but I don’t see anything wrong with catechism as the Orthodox do it. It is interactive, personalized, and ongoing. Although I was baptized some time ago by now, I would say that I am still a catechumen in the sense that I am initiated into the fullness of Christian life with every new liturgy. Again, the dynamic life of the Church cannot be encapsulated in one or a million books.
There is more unity among our Catholic brothers and sisters because they have a formal catechism to rely on.
Click to expand...
I absolutely disagree and am frankly a little bit confused as to why you have brought this issue up apropos of nothing. If the Orthodox had a formal catechism (and I have seen certain books labeled as Orthodox catechisms, though none from within the OO communion so I can’t really comment on what that means), it wouldn’t change what divides Rome from us, and if Rome didn’t have a formal catechism it also wouldn’t change what divides Rome from us. You have a very strange way of looking at things, Chimo. I don’t understand your point here at all.
 
I think as an outsider to Orthodoxy, I can see what Chimo is getting at. Take the idea of the prayers for the dead. This is universally practiced among OO and EO, but without any real uniformity of doctrine. Most I have heard from seem to say that Orthodoxy teaches that our prayer somehow help the dead and allows for freedom in everything on top of that, as long as we agree we reject the Latin doctrine of purgatory. It is hard for outsiders to understand what Orthodox believe because there is apparenty no normative summary of Orthodox doctrine apart from the ecumenical coucils, which are limited in their scope, especially if you only accept what came before Chalcedon. Even something that would seem to be normative like the Confession of Dositheus I have seen rejected for being “too Latin” (e.g. for teaching transubstantiation). Therefore, until thorough and truly normative Orthodox teaching is made known more publicly, Orthodox belief will remain a mystery to outsiders, but I think that’s the way the Orthodox like it. 🙂
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
The current model of Catholic sacramental theology was not created by Congar. It is the perennial teaching of the Church. It has always been taught that although baptism outside the Church may not avail to salvation (put another way, the recipient of baptis might not receive the grace of the sacrament), baptism administered validly always imprints the baptismal character. This is why baptism is never knowingly administered twice, or else it is administered conditionally. Augustine in a sermon (you know the quote) noting the impossibility of salvation outside the Church, admits that there can be sacraments outside the Church (in addition to every other element conceivable of the Church).
Click to expand...
But that position of St. Augustine is inconsistent with the fundamental patristic premise that sacraments only exist where the Church present. The Second Vatican Council’s ecclesiology as spelled out in Unitatis Redintegratio acts as a corrective of sorts to St. Augustine, by reconceiving of the sacraments of those in schism or heresy as being a true entrance into an albeit hindered and incomplete communion with the Church.

The Orthodox simply have traditionally taken that premise to the opposite conclusion, that true sacraments simply are not found amongst those in schism and heresy, an idea which may be found expressed in ancient sources such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil, the Apostolic Canons, St. Cyprian, and St. Firmillian.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
I think as an outsider to Orthodoxy, I can see what Chimo is getting at. Take the idea of the prayers for the dead. This is universally practiced among OO and EO, but without any real uniformity of doctrine. Most I have heard from seem to say that Orthodoxy teaches that our prayer somehow help the dead and allows for freedom in everything on top of that, as long as we agree we reject the Latin doctrine of purgatory. It is hard for outsiders to understand what Orthodox believe because there is apparenty no normative summary of Orthodox doctrine apart from the ecumenical coucils, which are limited in their scope, especially if you only accept what came before Chalcedon. Even something that would seem to be normative like the Confession of Dositheus I have seen rejected for being “too Latin” (e.g. for teaching transubstantiation). Therefore, until thorough and truly normative Orthodox teaching is made known more publicly, Orthodox belief will remain a mystery to outsiders, but I think that’s the way the Orthodox like it. 🙂
Click to expand...
The people who reject the confession of Dositheus often misunderstand the limited criticisms of later theologians, who typically criticized the wording of his confession without rejecting the faith confessed therein.

On purgatory, the Orthodox objections to the doctrine have only traditionally been a handful. We reject the premise that God must punish sins which have been forgiven (a point which was debated at Florence). We also reject the notion of a fire which is not the fire of everlasting punishment (yet another point debated at Florence).
 
Cavaradossi said:
The Orthodox simply have traditionally taken that premise to the opposite conclusion, that true sacraments simply are not found amongst those in schism and heresy, an idea which may be found expressed in ancient sources such as St. Athanasius, St. Basil, the Apostolic Canons, St. Cyprian, and St. Firmillian.
Click to expand...
And that was rejected by the Church unfortunate Cyprian didn’t comprehend the dialogue with the Pope. There is no re-baptism. And Firmillian was right, those who are not is communion with the Pope are “Outside the Church”. 🤷

I agree completely. 👍

There is no dogma on purgatory. In fact there is one paragraph in the CCC on it. You guys know better about the Toll Booths. 😉

The Toll Booths are “unacceptable” . 🤷
 
Cavaradossi said:
The people who reject the confession of Dositheus often misunderstand the limited criticisms of later theologians, who typically criticized the wording of his confession without rejecting the faith confessed therein.

On purgatory, the Orthodox objections to the doctrine have only traditionally been a handful. We reject the premise that God must punish sins which have been forgiven (a point which was debated at Florence). We also reject the notion of a fire which is not the fire of everlasting punishment (yet another point debated at Florence).
Click to expand...
First, the catechism of the CC defines purgatory as such:
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
Click to expand...
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
Click to expand...
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, **by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:**607
Click to expand...
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
Click to expand...
It is not punishment that the catechism refers to but purification, however, it is interesting to note that when one’s sins are forgiven penance is administered by the priest be he Orthodox or Catholic:
What your confessor says by way of advice can be remarkably insightful, or brusque, or seem to you a cliché and not very relevant, yet almost always there will be something helpful if only you are willing to hear it. Sometimes there is a suggestion or insight that becomes a turning point in your life.** If he imposes a penance—normally increased prayer, fasting, and acts of mercy—it should be accepted meekly,** unless there is something in the penance which seems to you a violation of your conscience or of the teaching of the Church as you understand it.
Click to expand...
antiochian.org/content/confession-healing-sacrament
Click to expand...
Why should there be ANY penance for sins forgiven, and if you accept penance for sins forgiven in the here and now, why is it inconceivable to believe we do “penance” in purgatory if it leads to purification?

p.s. Fire is utilized in scripture as a means of purification and/or as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, i.e., baptism of fire. Nothing wrong per se with believing that we are cleansed by fire.
 
josie_L said:
Why should there be ANY penance for sins forgiven, and if you accept penance for sins forgiven in the here and now, why is it inconceivable to believe we do “penance” in purgatory (even after our sins were forgiven) for the purpose of purification?
Click to expand...
The better question is how this works with the particular and general judgment which once upon a time the EO use to profess.
 
Cavaradossi said:
It was a symbolic gesture made by the Ecumenical Patriarch. It doesn’t undo the synods which have condemned doctrinal differences, most notably the Filioque.
Click to expand...
Lifting excommunication is a symbolic gesture?

Who knew?🤷
 
josie_L said:
Never understood the toll booths, does one have to pay? 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, another one of those old tales. the Italians in the Latin Church still add dollar bills to the caskets at the wake for the Tolls on the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top